As per case facts, the petitioner, initially appointed as a Senior Research Fellow, sought appointment to a suitable post after his project was abolished. Following a court directive, he was ...
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 1 of 67
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18436 of 2021
CNR No. ODHC010389082021
In the matter of an Application under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
***
Sri Banamali Sahoo
Aged about 59 years
Son of Judhistir Sahoo
At: Ratai, P.O.: Bada Kaurda
District: Balasore
Presently serving as
Section Officer
In the Office of the Dean Research
Odisha University of
Agriculture and Technology
Bhubaneswar. … Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. Chancellor
Odisha University of
Agriculture and Technology
Raj Bhawan
Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha.
2. Vice Chancellor
Odisha University of
Agriculture and Technology
Siripur, Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha. WP(C)/18436/2021
ODHC010389082021
2026:OHC:66
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 2 of 67
3. Commissioner-cum-
Secretary to Government of Odisha
Department of Agriculture and
Food Production, Odisha
Secretariat, Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha.
4. Registrar
Odisha University of
Agriculture and Technology
Siripur, Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha.
5. Ashirbad Satpathy
Placement Officer
Under the Control of Dean
PGF-cum-DRI
Odisha University of
Agriculture and Technology
Bhubaneswar. … Opposite Parties.
Advocates appeared in the case:
For the Petitioner : M/s. Satya Narayan Mohapatra,
Sonali Mohapatra,
Ashok Aurovindo Mohanty,
Advocates.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Debaraj Mohanty
No.3 Additional Government Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Soumik Spandan Tripathy,
Nos.2 and 4 Pritam Pradhan,
Suman Priyadarshini,
Priti Pragyan Das, Advocates.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Biswabihari Mohanty,
No.5 Advocate.
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 3 of 67
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE JUSTICE
MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Date of Hearing : 11.08.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 27.08.2026
JUDGMENT
MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.—
Assailed in the writ petition, filed to invoke provisions of
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, are the
Office Order dated 26.12.2015 passed by the Vice-
Chancellor of the Odisha University of Agriculture and
Technology, Bhubaneswar (abbreviated, “OUAT”)
appointing the opposite party No.5 (Ashirbad Satapathy)
as Placement Officer (Annexure-14) and the Order vide
Letter No.17431 — E-I-II-18/2009/UAT, dated
15.12.2020 of Vice-Chancellor, OUAT (Annexure-16)
rejecting the representations dated 08.01.2020,
02.06.2020, 28.10.2020, 13.11.2020 and 01.12.2020,
whereby the petitioner, Section Officer, Level-II,
requested to appoint him in the post of Placement
Officer.
Facts:
2. Shorn off unnecessary details, pertinent facts as
adumbrated in the writ petition are stated herein below.
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 4 of 67
2.1. The petitioner having the qualification of Master‟s Degree
in Commerce with Personnel Management as a
Specialized subject, was initially appointed on
17.09.1988 as a Senior Research Fellow under the
project work of Indian Council of Agricultural Research
titled “Study on cost effectiveness of rice crop in Odisha”
under the OUAT where he continued as such till the
aforesaid project was abolished with effect from
31.03.1991. As per the decision of the authorities all the
employees working under the aforesaid project were
given regular appointment befitting their qualification
under the OUAT, except the petitioner, who was given
appointment on 01.04.1991 against the post of Field
Investigator in the scale of pay of Rs.3200-4900/- which
was not befitting his qualification as Matriculation was
the required qualification for the said post. Challenging
such action of the authorities, the petitioner had
approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being
O.J.C. No.9987 of 1998, which got disposed of by Order
dated 20.09.1999, with the following direction, as
quoted in the writ petition
1:
“Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties, we dispose of the writ petition with the
direction to the opposite parties to consider the case of
the petitioner for appointment in a suitable post
immediately after a vacancy arises. The petitioner is
1
Copy of complete order is not enclosed with the writ petition.
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 5 of 67
now aged 35 years and as such the concerned authority
will relax the age and condone his over age.”
2.2. The Commissioner- cum-Secretary, Government of
Odisha by letter dated 09.02.2000 instructed the Vice-
Chancellor to comply with the said direction of this
Court and report compliance. Accordingly, the petitioner
was adjusted and offered the post of Junior Assistant by
Order dated 03.04.2000 in the scale of pay of Rs.3,050/-
- Rs.4,590/-. The petitioner joined the post of Junior
Assistant in the College of Engineering and Technology
under the OUAT. Subsequently he got promotion to the
post of Senior Assistant and thereafter he was promoted
to the post of Section Officer in the Office of the Dean
Research, OUAT, Bhubaneswar.
2.3. While continuing as Senior Assistant in the College of
Engineering and Technology under the OUAT, which
college was transferred to the Biju Patnaik University of
Technology, a recommendation was made by the
Principal vide his Letter No.2129 dated 16.11.2004
pointing out that the college required a post of Liaison
Officer, and the case of the petitioner might be
considered for the said post. A request was also made to
accord permission to upgrade the post, against which
this petitioner was continuing, to the post of Liaison
Officer carrying the scale of pay of Rs.6,500/- -
Rs.10,500/-.
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 6 of 67
2.4. By Office Order dated 24.08.2007 the petitioner was
brought back to OUAT to function as Senior Assistant
on promotion pending consideration of the proposal for
his appointment as Liaison Officer in the College of
Engineering and Technology.
2.5. By virtue of OUAT Notification No.35109 — E-II-I-
26/2010/UAT, dated 25.06.2010 issued in pursuance of
the letter bearing No.14266— PRE (UAT) 36/10/Ag,
dated 22.06.2010 of the Government in Agriculture
Department a vacant post of Farm Superintendent in the
rank of Assistant Professor under Regional Research &
Technology Transfer Station (RRTTS), Keonjhar stood
abolished; but in lieu thereof post of Placement Officer in
Class-II was created in the OUAT, Bhubaneswar on
regular basis for monitoring the employment
opportunities of the pass out students of the OUAT.
2.6. An Agenda was placed before the Academic Council in
the Meeting held on 12.08.2010 and in the said meeting
by Resolution No.6504 a regular Placement Officer in
Class-II Cadre to be placed under the Dean, Students‟
Welfare was approved with the following minimum
qualification and experience for the post:
“Essential:
(i) Bachelor‟s Degree in Sc ience/Arts/Commerce/
Computer Science/Computer Engineering,
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 7 of 67
(ii) Master‟s Degree with Computer knowledge in
Business Administration/Human Resources
Development/Personal Management/ Public
Relation and Advertisement.
Desirable:
Two years‟ experience as Placement Officer in any
reputed Educational/Research/Industrial Institutions.”
2.7. Deviating the minimum qualification approved by the
Academic Council in their proceeding dated 12.08.2010,
the Board of Management in the Meeting held on
22.09.2010 amended the minimum qualification for
filling up the post of Placement Officer, which reads as
follows:
“Essential:
Bachelor Degree in any of the discipline with Master
Degree in Business Administration/Human Resources
Development/Personal Management/Public Relation and
Advertisement.
Desirable:
Two years‟ experience as Placement Officer in any
reputed Educational/Research/Industrial Institutions.”
2.8. Adhering to the minimum qualification stipulated by the
Board of Management, advertisement dated 18.10.2010
was issued to fill up the post of Placement Officer fixing
20.11.2010 as the last date for receipt of application.
The petitioner submitted an application to the Registrar,
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 8 of 67
OUAT to consider his appointment in the said post of
Placement Officer as a special case in view of the
order/direction dated 20.09.1999 of this Court in O.J.C.
No.9987 of 1998. As no action was taken on his
representation, he approached this Court in by way of
an application, registered as W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010,
with the prayer to consider his case for the post of
Placement Officer ignoring the advertisement issued on
18.10.2010 and further prayed to quash the
advertisement dated 18.10.2010.
2.9. During pendency of aforesaid writ petition on the
representation made by the petitioner and after
obtaining the views of the Law Department, the
Government in Agriculture Department fixed the
following criteria for posting of Banamali Sahoo, Senior
Assistant as Placement Officer with a request to seek
permission of this Court to amend the said
advertisement vide letter No. No. 10216— PRE-UAT-
57/2014, dated 20.06.2014:
“Master degree from a recognized university in any
discipline with atleast 55% marks or equivalent with
Master Degree in Business Administration/Human
Resource Development/Personal Management.
Desirable:
Two years experience as Placement Officer in any reputed
educational/ research/industrial institutions.”
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 9 of 67
2.10. While the matter stood thus, this Court dismissed the
writ petition, bearing W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010, filed by
the petitioner by Order dated 01.09.2015 with the
following observation:
“Considering the contention raised by the learned counsel
for the parties and after going through the records, it
appears that the advertisement was issued on
18.10.2010 in Annexure-6 by fixing essential
qualification for the post of Placement Officer and
the petitioner having no requisite qualification in
terms of the advertisement issued, subsequent
change of any qualification cannot be taken into
consideration because the selection process has to
be held in terms of the advertisement issued in
Annexure-6. In that view of the matter, this Court is not
inclined to entertain this application, accordingly, the
same is dismissed.”
2.11. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed intra-Court
appeal, being W.A. No.630 of 2015, which got dismissed
by the Division Bench on 18.12.2015.
2.12. Still aggrieved, the petitioner had approached the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P.(C) No.12760 of
2016, which also got dismissed vide Order dated
13.05.2016 with the following observation:
“We are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition
which is dismissed.
However, we permit the petitioner to approach the High
Court by way of a review, insofar as it pertains to the
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 10 of 67
observation of the High Court in Paragraph 2 of the
impugned order.
Liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy
after the orders passed in the review.”
2.13. Availing the liberty granted to the petitioner by the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the Order dated
13.05.2016, review petition, bearing RVWPET No. 211 of
2016, was filed before this Court, which stood disposed
of vide Order dated 19.12.2019 with the following
observation:
“This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
review of the Order dated 18.12.2015 passed in W.A. No.
630 of 2015.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This petition Taking into consideration the submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner and the averments
made in this review petition, paragraph 2 of the Order
dated 18.12.2015 passed in W.A. No.630 of 2015 is
deleted.
The RVWPET is accordingly disposed of.”
2.14. Despite the instruction of the Government in Agriculture
Department fixing the requisite qualification for the post
of Placement Officer and to revise the qualification
prescribed in advertisement dated 18.10.2010 in their
letter dated 20.06.2014, the authorities of the OUAT
proceeded with the selection process on the basis of the
same eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 11 of 67
dated 18.10.2010 and appointed one Ashirbad
Satapathy (Opposite Party No.5) in the post of Placement
Officer under OUAT in the scale of pay of Rs.15,600/--
Rs.39,100/- plus AGP Rs.6,000/ with usual DA and
other allowances as per Office Order No.29537— E-II-II-
18/2015/UAT, dated 26.12.2015.
2.15. After disposal of the review petition the petitioner made
a representation dated 08.01.2020 with a request for his
posting as Placement Officer, a non-teaching post in
Class-II Cadre, at the OUAT with immediate effect in the
scale of pay Rs.9,300/- - Rs.34,800/- with grade pay
Rs.4,600/- as directed by the Agriculture Department.
Said representation of the petitioner stands rejected by
Order No.17431-E-I-I-18/2009/UAT, dated 15.12.2020
of the Vice-Chancellor, OUAT with the following
reasoning:
“It is mentioned here that, there is only one post of
Placement Officer under OUAT for which selection
process has already been completed with due procedure
and the selected candidate appointed and continued
against the above said post since 26.12.2015.
In case of allowing scale of pay, it is to mention here that
the post of Placement Officer was created by
Government in class-II rank against abolition of
vacant post of Farm Superintendent in the rank of
Assistant Professor under RRTTS, Keonjhar vide
fetter No. 14266/Ag, dated 22.06.2010 . Subsequently
this office has notified the same vide Office Order No.
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 12 of 67
35109 dated 25.06.2010. Academic Council as well as
Board of Management approved the qualification.
No where pay scale has been mentioned, only the post
has been described as Class-II cadre. It is found that,
after receipt of „the allegation from Sri Banamali Sahoo,
the Government Letter No.10216, dated 20.06.2014
clarifying the pay scale of Placement Officer was collected
from Government. Meanwhile Shri Ashirbad Satapathy,
Placement Officer filed a case before the Hon‟ble High
Court vide WP(C) No.17152 of 2016 against the Order
issued by OUAT vide No.19309, dated 16.09.2016 in
which the designation of Placement Officer was changed
to Skill Development Officer. As an interim order Hon‟ble
Court passed order as follows:
„Continuance of the petitioner shall be without prejudice to
his claim as made in this writ petition.‟
The matter has already been intimated to Government,
DAFE but no reply received yet. Soon after receipt of reply
this Office will take appropriate necessary action as per
the instructions of Government.
After going through the representation and checking it
with the available records, it is now found that the claim
of the petitioner Sri Banamali Sahoo to be appointed as
Placement Officer is not genuine and deserves no merit.
So the claim made by the petitioner Sri Banamali Sahoo,
Section Officer, Level-II is rejected and the representations
made on dated 08.01.2020, dated 02.06.2020, dated
28.10.2020, dated 13.11.2020 and dated 01.12.2020 are
hereby disposed of.”
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 13 of 67
2.16. Being dissatisfied with such rejection of representations,
this petition has been filed with the main grievance, as
candidly stated at paragraph 14 of the writ petition:
“That the main grievance of the petitioner is that the
qualification prescribed by the Government in the Letter
dated 20.06.2014 has not been followed for recruitment
to the post of Placement Officer. When the post of
Placement Officer is a Class-II and a non-teaching post
carrying the scale of pay PB-2, Rs.9,300-34,800/- with
GP of Rs.4,600/- in absence of any further approval of the
State Government as well as Board, there was no reason
for the OUAT authorities to mention the scale of pay
Rs.15,600-39,100/- plus AGP Rs.6,000/- admissible to
the post of Class-II in teaching cadre. Before the selection
process had commenced the letter of the Government
dated 20.06.2014 prescribing the scale of pay and grade
of Placement Officer was very much available with the
OUAT. But they did not issue any corrigendum to the
advertisement dated 18.06.2010. There is no submission
in the order of rejection that the petitioner has no requisite
qualification for appointment to the post of Placement
Officer. Since Sri Satapathy has been selected and
appointed on the basis of qualification not prescribed by
the Government, his appointment is liable to be quashed.”
Counter affidavit of the opposite party Nos.2 and 4
(OUAT):
3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Research Fellow
on ad hoc basis in terms of the Indian Council of
Agricultural Research Scheme and joined as such in
pursuance of Office Order No.31984, dated 16.09.1988
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 14 of 67
issued by OUAT on consolidated pay of Rs.900/- per
month. The Research Fellow was re-designated as Senior
Research Fellow vide Office Order No.12, dated
01.01.1991 with revised consolidated pay of Rs.1,750/-
with effect from 17.09.1990. The Research Fellow/Senior
Research Fellow under the Indian Council of
Agricultural Research Scheme are contractual positions.
On closure of the above Indian Council of Agricultural
Research Scheme with effect from 31.03.1991, the
petitioner was offered appointment as Field Investigator
on ad hoc basis with scale of pay Rs.975/- - Rs.1,600/-
with DA and OA with effect from 01.04.1991 vide Office
Order No.5745, dated 05.04.1991. But the petitioner did
not accept the appointment offered by the University.
Nonetheless, the petitioner filed writ petition, bearing
O.J.C. No. 9987 of 1998 which got disposed of on
20.09.1999 with the direction “to the opposite parties to
consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in a
suitable post immediately after a vacancy arises and
concerned authority will relax the age and condone his
overage”.
3.1. As per direction of this Court, instruction of Agriculture
Department vide Letter No.29764/Ag., dated 22.10.1999
and decision of Board of Management Resolution
No.3120, dated 25.03.2000, the petitioner was
appointed as Junior Assistant in the Department of
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 15 of 67
Instrumentation and Electronics, College of Engineering
and Technology as the said college was a constituent
College under the OUAT in scale of pay Rs.3050-4,590/-
with DA and other allowances vide Office Order No.
4609/UAT, dated 03.04.2000. The petitioner filed
W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010 before this Court with a
prayer for direction to the opposite parties to consider
his case for the post of Placement Officer ignoring the
advertisement dated 18.10.2010 and to quash of
advertisement dated 18.10.2010 for the post of
Placement Officer. Said W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010 was
dismissed vide Order dated 01.09.2015 and the
challenge made to said order in appeal, bearing W.A.
No.630 of 2015, also got dismissed by Order dated
18.12.2015. However after the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of
India vide Order dated 13.05.2016 declined to entertain
S.L.P.(C) No.12760 of 2016, challenging the Order in
writ appeal, the petitioner having preferred petition for
review, being RVWPET No.211 of 2016, this Court vide
Order dated 19.12.2019 deleted paragraph 2 of Order
dated 18.12.2015 passed in W.A. No.630 of 2015. The
petitioner submitted the representation to implement the
Order of this Court. The representation of the petitioner
got disposed of vide University Order No. 17431— E-I-II-
18/2019/UAT, dated 15.12.2020 (Annexure-16 of the
writ petition) which is subject-matter of challenge in the
writ petition.
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 16 of 67
3.2. After closure of the Indian Council of Agricultural
Research Scheme since the petitioner did not join in the
post of Field Investigator, as instructed vide Letter
No.347 dated 30.04.1991, but filed writ petition wherein
Order dated 20.09.1999 was passed disposing of O.J.C.
No.9987 of 1998 with a direction to consider the case of
the petitioner for appointment in a suitable post
immediately after vacancies that might arise in future
and the petitioner was then aged about 35 years for
which the concerned authority would relax the age and
condone his overage. After adhering to formalities, the
petitioner was offered appointment as Junior Assistant,
which being accepted, the petitioner joined in the said
post. The Office Order No.4609— E-III-I-30/2000/UAT,
dated 03.04.2000 runs as follows:
“In pursuance of the Order No.15, dated 20.09.1999 of
the Hon‟ble High Court vide O.J.C. No.9987 of 1998 and
decision of the Board of Management in its Resolution
No.3120, dated 25.03.2000, Sri Banamali Sahoo is
appointed temporarily as Junior Assistant in the
Department of Instrumentation and Electronics, College of
Engineering and Technology, Bhubaneswar in the scale of
pay of Rs.3,50-75-3950-80-4,590/- with usual DA and
other allowances as may be sanctioned by the University
from time to time.
The appointment is purely temporary and terminable at
any time without notice and assigned any reason
therefor.
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 17 of 67
The overage of Sri Sahoo is hereby condoned.”
3.3. The petitioner was thereafter promoted to the post of
Senior Assistant and subsequently as Section Officer.
The petitioner was continuing as Section Officer, Level-II
on the date of filing of the writ petition, but now he is
retired on attaining age of superannuation.
3.4. The employees who were in regular service with pay and
pay scale, on the date of closure of the Indian Council of
Agricultural Research Project/Scheme, the employees
were adjusted against the same Cadre/Post held by
them irrespective of their qualifications. Nevertheless,
the petitioner being appointed on ad hoc basis with
consolidated pay under the Scheme, on its closure he
was offered a post of Field Investigation with scale of pay
Rs.925/- - Rs.1,660/- with DA and other allowances
which he refused to accept.
3.5. The Academic Council is empowered to prescribe the
qualification for the post under teaching/research/
extension education under this University as per
prescribed provisions made under the Odisha University
of Agriculture and Technology OUAT Act, 1965 and the
Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology
Statutes, vide Agriculture Department Notification
No.37520/Ag, dated 05.11.1966. The Academic Council
by Resolution No.6504, dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure-4)
approved the qualification for the post of Placement
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 18 of 67
Officer (Class-II). Subsequently the Board of
Management approved the requisite qualification for
appointment in the post of Placement Officer vide
Resolution No. 3633 dated 22.09.2010 (Annexure-5).
The Master Degree possessed the petitioner is not
equivalent to the qualification prescribed and approved
by the Board of Management for the post of Placement
Officer. He also did not have experience as Placement
Officer which was the desirable qualification for
selection. The qualification approved by the Board of
Management was exactly that which was prescribed by
the Academic Council. With the approval of Board of
Management, the advertisement specifying the
qualification was notified.
3.6. The requisite qualification for the post of Placement
Officer was approved by the Board of Management in
Resolution No.3633, dated 22.09.2010. Accordingly, the
University advertised the post of Placement Officer with
approved qualification vide Advertisement No.53898,
dated 18.10.2010 (Annexure-6). In the meantime, an
interim order was passed by this Court vide Order No.2,
dated 19.11.2010 in Misc. Case No.18303 of 2010
(arising out of W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010), which reads
as follows:
“Let the interview process to continue in terms of
Annexure-6 but no final decision shall be taken for the
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 19 of 67
post of Placement Officer without leave of the Court, till
the next date.”
After finalization of W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010, vide
Order dated 01.09.2015 dismissing the petition, the
selection process was completed. On recommendation of
the Standing Selection Committee, Sri Ashirbad
Satapathy was appointed as Placement Officer under
OUAT in the scale of pay Rs.15,600/- - Rs.39,100/-with
AGP Rs. 6,000/- vide OUAT Office Order No.29537,
dated 26.12.2015. The Selection Committee reported
that the petitioner had no requisite qualification attune
with the qualification specified in the advertisement
dated 18.10.2010. Hence the petitioner was not found
eligible for the post.
3.7. The Placement Officer in Class-II under the OUAT was
created by surrendering one equal cadre post, i.e., Farm
Superintendent in the rank of Assistant Professor from
RRTTS, Keonjhar functioning under the OUAT for
monitoring the employment opportunity of the students
both at Government and Non-Government Level. The
post of Placement Officer in Class-II was created with
the approval of the Agriculture Department, Government
of Odisha vide Letter No. 14266/Ag., dated 22.06.2010.
Since the post was created in lieu of abolition of the post
of Farm Superintendent in the scale of pay of
Rs.15,600/- - Rs.39,100/- with AGP Rs.6,000/-, the
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 20 of 67
advertisement was made for the post of Placement
Officer accordingly. Though initially the Academic
Council approved the requisite qualification for
appointment to the said post, the Board of Management
is the competent authority to approve the qualification
for the post.
Counter affidavit of the opposite party No.5:
4. As a preliminary issue, maintainability of the writ
petition has been raised by the opposite party No.5.
4.1. The petitioner accepted the post of Junior Assistant
upon relaxation of age as directed by this Court in the
first round of litigation. During pendency of second
round of litigation, advertisement to fill up the post of
Placement Officer was floated specifying eligibility
criteria. After dismissal of the writ petition and writ
appeal of the petitioner, the appointment to the said post
was finalized and the opposite party No.5 joined in the
post and continuing with the job.
4.2. The post of Placement Officer, being created in the year
2010, is not a promotional post of Section Officer. The
petitioner having joined in the post of Junior Assistant
and got promotion to the post of Senior Assistant and
subsequently to the post of Section Officer. Having
reaped the benefit of promotion in the hierarchy of
ministerial post without any demur, the petitioner has
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 21 of 67
been taking a calculative chance by agitating the matter
with different forms at different times. The
advertisement for filling up of the post of Placement
Officer was published on 18.10.2010 with the criteria
being specified in the lines of Academic Council
Resolution of OUAT. Having not questioned the decision
of the Academic Council, the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
4.3. Dismissal of the writ petition and the writ appeal by this
Court and the special leave petition by the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court of India, the Order dated 01.09.2015
passed in W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010 by learned Single
Judge attained finality by virtue of dismissal of W.A.
No.630 of 2015, vide Order dated 18.12.2015 as
modified by virtue of Order dated 19.12.2019 in
RVWPET No.211 of 2016. Challenge laid to prescribed
qualification for the post of Placement Officer in the
advertisement dated 18.10.2010 in the writ petition,
W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010 being dismissed, the
petitioner cannot question the appointment of the
opposite party No.5, as he is not prejudiced.
4.4. Successive writ petition on the issue already decided
ought not to be proceeded with as the same would be hit
by principles of res judicata. See, Kangra Central
Cooperative Bank Limited Vrs. The Kangra Central
Cooperative Bank Pensioner Welfare Association (Regd.)
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 22 of 67
& Ors., (2025) 12 SCR 766; Satheesh V.K. Vrs. The
Federal Bank Ltd., (2025) 9 SCR 1255; The Gauhati High
Court through The Registrar General Vrs. Goto Ete &
others, (2018) 10 SCR 261; Bikash Mahalik Vrs. State of
Odisha, 2022 (I) ILR-CUT 108.
Hearing:
5. Heard Sri Satya Narayan Mohapatra, learned Advocate
for the petitioner; Sri Soumik Spandan Tripathy, learned
Advocate for the opposite party Nos.2 and 4; and Sri
Biswabihari Mohanty, learned Advocate for the opposite
party No.5.
5.1. After conclusion of the hearing, the matter is reserved
for preparation and delivery of Judgment.
Consideration of rival contentions:
6. Sri Satya Narayan Mohapatra, learned Advocate
reiterating the facts sought to question whether post of
Placement Officer, Class-II, OUAT, being a non-teaching
post within the meaning of Statute 3(3)(ix), Part-II
(Recruitment, Election and General Provisions), Chapter-
II (Officers of the University, their Appointment, Powers
and Duties) of the Odisha University of Agriculture and
Technology Statutes, 1966 read with Section 2(xv) of the
Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 23 of 67
Employees‟ (Conditions of Service) Statutes, 1989, could
be assigned with teaching scale of pay.
6.1. Such a question apparently does not call for
adjudication inasmuch as no prayer is made to declare
said action ultra vires the Statutes. Regard being had to
the prayers made in the writ petition it is manifest that
the petitioner is peeved against the appointment of the
opposite party No.5 in the post of Placement Officer.
6.2. Section 2(10) of the Odisha University of Agriculture and
Technology Act, 1965 defines the term “teacher” to mean
“a person appointed or recognised by the University for
the purpose of imparting instruction or conducting and
guiding research and extension educational programmes
and includes a person who may be declared by the
statutes to be a teacher.” In exercise of powers conferred
by Section 33 read with Section 34(1) of the Odisha
University of Agriculture and Technology Act, 1965, the
Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology
Statutes, 1966 came into force on 05.11.1966 by virtue
of Section 1(2), which clearly specified that “they shall
come into force at once”. The caption heading of said
Statutes mentioned that “the State Government do
hereby make the following first statutes after the same
having been provisionally published in the Odisha
Gazette Extraordinary No.352, dated 04.04.1966.
Stemming on Statute 3(3)(ix) of the Odisha University of
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 24 of 67
Agriculture and Technology Statutes, 1966, Sri Satya
Narayan Mohapatra, learned Advocate submitted that
the qualification of ministerial staff and other employees
should be the same for similar posts under the
Government of Odisha bearing the same or equivalent
scale of pay. In the counter affidavit, it is unambiguously
asserted by the opposite party Nos.2 and 4 that “the
post of Placement Officer in Class-II was created on
regular basis with the approval of Agriculture
Department, Government of Odisha vide Letter
No.14266/Ag, dated 22.06.2010 in which the pay scale
was not mentioned. Since the post was created by
abolishing the post of Farm Superintendent in the scale
of pay Rs.15,600/- - Rs.39,100 with AGP Rs.6,000/-,
the advertisement was made for the post of Placement
Officer accordingly”. Refuting the contention of the
petitioner it is stated by these opposite parties that
though the Academic Council initially approved
qualification for the said post, the Board of Management
is the competent authority in view of Statute 3(4) of the
Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology
Statutes, 1966, which unequivocally spells out that “the
scale of pay of officers, teachers and employees” would
be as specified thereunder, but “subject to changes from
time to time to be made by the Board by Orders with
prior approval of the Government”. The question posed
by the petitioner shall not detain this Court any further.
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 25 of 67
Having not questioned the exercise of powers to be ultra
vires the Statutes, the point raised by the petitioner does
not call for consideration and is unwarranted. However,
in view of the clear position as enumerated by the
opposite party Nos.2 and 4, it requires no specific
answer.
6.3. Fact remains that on the basis of eligibility and requisite
qualification being specified in the advertisement dated
18.10.2010 for appointment of Placement Officer, single
post created on account of abolition of Farm
Superintendent in the rank of Assistant Professor in
pursuance of Agriculture Department Letter No.14266—
PRE(UAT)-36/10/Ag, dated 22.06.2010 vide OUAT
Letter No.35109— E-II-I-26/ 2010/UAT, dated
25.06.2010, and said qualification so prescribed in the
advertisement being not interfered with in the Order
dated 01.09.2015 in W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010, filed at
the behest of the petitioner, this Court is precluded to
re-examine such issue. In the said decision in the earlier
round of litigation this Court held that the petitioner had
no eligibility criteria/requisite qualification for
appointment to the post of Placement Officer in Class-II.
The manner of prayer made in the instant writ petition is
allowed, it would lead to scope to examine the
satisfaction of eligibility conditions of the opposite party
No.5, who was found successful to get appointment in
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 26 of 67
the process of recruitment process in response to
advertisement dated 18.10.2010 and in fact he has been
appointed in the post of Placement Officer after
finalisation of the matter in earlier round of litigation in
the year 2015. The reason for the delay in publication of
result is on account of interim order being passed by
this Court in W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010. After dismissal
of said writ petition and writ appeal against order in said
writ petition the result could be published and
appointment was given to the opposite party No.5.
6.4. As the record transpires that the observation made in
Order dated 01.09.2015 in W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010
declining to interfere with the requisite qualification
enshrined for the post of Placement Officer in the
advertisement dated 18.10.2010 and the petitioner had
no requisite qualification for the said post, there cannot
be any doubt that such finding returned by the learned
Single Judge has attained finality by virtue of dismissal
of the writ appeal vide Order dated 18.12.2015 read with
Order dated 19.12.2019 passed in review petition,
RVWPET No.211 of 2016 and Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No.12760 of 2016 by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
of India vide Order dated 13.05.2016. In Experion
Developers Private Limited Vrs. Himanshu Dewan and
Sonali Dewan and Others, (2023) 12 SCR 1118 the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India enunciated as follows:
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 27 of 67
“No doubt, in Pawan Gupta‟s case (supra)
2, this Court
had not exercised the power or jurisdiction conferred by
Article 136 of the Constitution of India, but had exercised
its appellate power, which would, in terms of the ratio in
Kunhayammed (supra)
3, becomes the final order which is
executable. Thus, the dismissal of the appeal by this
Court in the case of Pawan Gupta (supra), had put a
finality and an end to the litigation in the said
case. To this extent, therefore, the application of
the general principle of res judicata would bar the
party from raising the plea once again. The order
passed by this Court, on the application of the
principle of judicial discipline, bars and prevents
any tribunal or parties from canvassing or taking a
view which would have the effect of re-examination
of the issues and points determined in the case of
Pawan Gupta (supra) inter-se the parties to the
decision. However, dismissal of the appeal would not
operate as res judicata in the case of the respondents
against the appellant as they were not parties to the said
case, and the proceedings initiated by Pawan Gupta
were fact specific and not in a representative
capacity.”
6.5. In view of legal position with respect to challenge made
to appointment of another employee as enunciated in
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vrs. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 2013 SC 58, the prayer to quash the
selection of the opposite party No.5 and appointment
Order dated 26.12.2015 is incomprehensible. The
2
Experion Developers Pvt Ltd Vrs. Pawan Gupta, Decision dated 12.01.2021 in
Civil Appeal Nos. 3703-3704 of 2020.
3
Kunhayammed and Others Vrs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359 =
(2000) 1 Suppl. SCR 538
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 28 of 67
petitioner has joined in the post of Junior Assistant after
the OUAT condoned the overage pursuant to order of
this Court and thereafter got two promotions and on
attaining age of superannuation got retired while
working in the post of Section Officer. This Court finds
force in the submission of Sri Biswabihari Mohanty,
learned Advocate that the opposite party No.5 was
selected and he did join in the post of Placement Officer
after the order of this Court dismissing the writ petition
having attained finality.
7. Harping at the Order dated 20.09.1999 passed in O.J.C.
No.9987 of 1998, Sri Satya Narayan Mohapatra, learned
Advocate sought to canvas that the observation of this
Court has not been carried out in its letter and spirit as
the authority should have considered the case of the
petitioner for appointment in a suitable post immediately
after a vacancy arose. In the written note of submissions
he asserted that having qualified M.Com. the petitioner
could have been adjusted against the post of Lecturer
rather than offering him in the post of Junior Assistant
on 03.04.2000. Notwithstanding such plea, this Court
on close scrutiny of material placed on record finds that
though the petitioner was offered to join in the post of
Field Investigator in Consultancy Organisation after
closure of the Cost Effectiveness Scheme of Indian
Council of Agricultural Research vide Letter No.347/CO,
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 29 of 67
dated 30.04.1991 (Annexure-F/2), which he did not
honour. However, the petitioner accepted the position
and joined as Junior Assistant in pursuance of Order
dated 20.09.1999 passed in OJC No.9987 of 1998 and
decision of Board of Management in its Resolution dated
25.03.2000. On subsequent occasions he joined not only
in the promotional post of Senior Assistant, but also in
the post of Section Officer, wherefrom he got retired on
attaining age of superannuation.
7.1. Though the petitioner accepted the non-teaching post,
he after around ten years of service, on creation of a post
“Placement Officer” in Class-II category in the OUAT,
Bhubaneswar in lieu of Farm Superintendent vide
Notification dated 25.06.2010 issued by the OUAT raked
up the issue and questioned the advertisement dated
18.10.2010 issued for filling up of the post of Placement
Officer, which is single post in the OUAT, by way of filing
writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010. This
Court took note of such fact in Order dated 01.09.2015,
which is to the following effect:
“The petitioner files this application seeking for a direction
to opposite parties to consider his case for the post of
Placement Officer ignoring the advertisement issued as on
18.10.2010 and further seeking to quash the same.”
Observing thus, this Court dismissed the said writ
petition by holding that the advertisement was issued on
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 30 of 67
18.10.2010 by fixing essential qualification for the post
of Placement Officer and the petitioner having no
requisite qualification in terms of the advertisement
issued, subsequent change of any qualification cannot
be taken into consideration because the selection
process has to be held in terms of the advertisement
issued. In that view of the matter, this Court declined to
entertain the writ application. It is apt to mention that
such observation of this Court attained finality in view of
dismissal of writ appeal (W.A. No.630 of 2015, by Order
dated 18.12.2015 of the Division Bench) and
subsequently special leave petition (SLP(C) No.12760 of
2016 by Order dated 13.05.2016 of the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court of India). However, after dismissal of special leave
petition, the petitioner filed review petition, being
RVWPET No.211 of 2016, while disposing of said review
petition, a Division Bench of this Court modified the
order in writ appeal. After modification the original order
passed in writ appeal stands thus:
“02. 18.12.2015
1. The appeal is preferred from the order dated
01.09.2015 of learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.
19653 of 2010 with an application for condoning the
delay of 28 days in filing of the appeal. Even as
learned counsel for the appellant is not present, the
appellant has appeared as party in person and
insisted on arguing his own case. As recorded in
the impugned order, the appellant approached
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 31 of 67
the Court for a direction to consider his case
for the post of Placement Officer ignoring the
advertisement issued therefor on 18.10.2010.
His prayer was based on the grievances that
the said advertisement fixed the criteria for
the post of Placement Officer which the
appellant could not fulfill. He appears to have
approached several authorities to change the criteria
fixed by the opponent-Orissa University of
Agriculture and Technology (OUAT).
2.
4[***]
3. Since there is no ground in the appeal for
interference, no purpose would be served by
issuing notice in the application for
condonation of delay.
4. Accordingly, the appeal as well as the application
made therein are dismissed in limine.”
7.2. In course of hearing Sri Satya Narayan Mohapatra,
learned Counsel for the petitioner placed heavy
insistence on such deletion. This Court finds weak force
in such contention inasmuch as the ultimate result of
the petition for review stood firm by affirming dismissal
of writ appeal. What is culled out from the above orders
4
Prior to deletion by virtue of Order dated 19.12.2019 passed in RVWPET No.211
of 2018, Paragraph 2 of the Order dated 18.12.2015 passed in W.A. No.630 of
2015 stood thus:
“No ground is made out to hold that the criteria and requisite qualification fixed
by the University were in any way illegal or discriminatory. On the other hand,
the appellant has already been absorbed and promoted to the post where he is
getting the same pay scale as that of the Placement Officer (Class-II). Therefore,
his insistence upon being posted as Placement Officer without the requisite
qualification has no basis in law or in fact. Under the circumstances, learned
Single Judge was perfectly justified in declining the prayer of the appellant.”
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 32 of 67
of this Court is that the observations of the learned
Single Bench in the Order dated 01.09.2015 passed in
W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010 remained untouched,
wherefrom it can be discerned that this Court even after
passing order in the review petition the fact that the
advertisement dated 18.10.2010 prescribing
qualification for the post of Placement Officer is not
disturbed/modified.
7.3. It may not be inept to have regard to the enunciation of
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India, as reflected in the
Judgment dated 10.09.2025 passed in the batch of
matters, being State of Odisha and Others Vrs. Supriya
Kar and Others, W.A. No.138 of 2025 &c. Division Bench
of this Court observed in its judgment as follows:
“9. There are plethora of judgments rendered by the
Apex Court, where such issue was raised, whether
the authorities should follow the Rules which was
applicable on the date when the process for
recruitment was initiated or shall be bound by the
subsequent Rules as the said recruitment process
could not be completed during the lifetime of the
repealed Rules. It was consistently followed that
once the game is played, the rule of the game shall
not be changed in the midway. In other words, once
the recruitment process commenced, the Rules
applicable and/or prevalent at the relevant point of
time shall be followed and/or be a guiding factor till
the said recruitment process is complete. It would be
immaterial if such Rules is either repealed and/or
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 33 of 67
substituted by subsequent Rules as the authorities
are bound to follow the extant Rules as on the date
of the publication of the advertisement.
9.1. A Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case
of Tej Prakash Pathak and others Vrs. Rajasthan
High Court and others, (2013) 4 SCC 540, noticed
the divergent view having expressed in the judgment
rendered by the Apex Court and referred the matter
to the Hon‟ble Chief Justice of India for constituting
a larger Bench to answer the reference, whether the
State or its instrumentality can tinker with the rules
of the game to apply in the procedure for selection,
more particularly when the change sought to impose
is more rigorous scrutiny for selection. Pursuant to
such reference, the Five-Judge Bench was
constituted and by a judgment in the case Tej
Prakash Pathak and others Vrs. Rajasthan High
Court and others, (2024) 12 SCR 28 answered in the
following:
„30. What is clear from above is that the object of
any process of selection for entry into a public
service is to ensure that a person most suitable
for the post is selected. What is suitable for one
post may not be for the other. Thus, a degree of
discretion is necessary to be left to the
employer to devise its method/procedure to
select a candidate most suitable for the post
albeit subject to the overarching principles
enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution as also the Rules/Statute
governing service and reservation. Thus, in our
view, the appointing authority/recruiting
authority/competent authority, in absence of
Rules to the contrary, can devise a procedure
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 34 of 67
for selection of a candidate suitable to the post
and while doing so it may also set benchmarks
for different stages of the recruitment process
including written examination and interview.
However, if any such benchmark is set, the
same should be stipulated before the
commencement of the recruitment process. But
if the extant Rules or the advertisement inviting
applications empower the competent authority
to set benchmarks at different stages of the
recruitment process, then such benchmarks
may be set any time before that stage is
reached so that neither the candidate nor the
evaluator/examiner/interviewer is taken by
surprise. The decision in K. Manjusree Vrs.
State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCR 1025
does not proscribe setting of benchmarks for
various stages of the recruitment process but
mandates that it should not be set after the
stage is over, in other words after the game
has already been played. This view is in
consonance with the rule against arbitrariness
enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and
meets the legitimate expectation of the
candidates as also the requirement of
transparency in recruitment to public services
and thereby obviates mal practices in
preparation of select list.‟
9.2. The larger Bench while considering the broader
issue, whether the procedure prescribed in the
extant Rules can be violated, observed in the
following:
„37. In Sivanandan C.T. and others Vrs. High Court
of Kerala and others, (2023) 11 SCR 674 the
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 35 of 67
issue before the Constitution Bench was
whether for selection minimum marks could be
prescribed contrary to the extant rules and the
advertisement. Answering in the negative, the
Constitution Bench, speaking through one of us
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJ), held:
„15. The Administrative Committee of the High
Court decided to impose a cut off for the
viva-voce examination actuated by the
bona fide reason of ensuring that
candidates with requisite personality
assume judicial office. However laudable
that approach of the Administrative
Committee may have been, such a change
would be required to be brought in by a
substantive amendment to the rules
which came in much later as noticed
above. This is not a case where the rules
of the scheme of the High Court were
silent. Where the statutory rules are
silent, they can be supplemented in a
manner consistent with the object and
spirit of the Rules by an administrative
order.
16. In the present case, the statutory rules
expressly provided that the select list
would be drawn up on the basis of the
aggregate marks obtained in the written
examination and the viva-voce. This was
further elaborated in the scheme of
examination which prescribed that there
would be no cut off marks for the viva-
voce. This position is also reflected in the
notification of the High Court dated 30th
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 36 of 67
September, 2015. In this backdrop we
have come to the conclusion that the
decision of the High Court suffered from
its being ultra vires the 1961 Rules
besides being manifestly arbitrary.‟
38. Following Sivanandan CT (supra), a three-
Judge Bench of this Court in Salam Samarjeet
Singh Vrs. The High Court of Manipur at
Imphal & Another, (2024) 8 SCR 885 held:
„31. … Prescribing minimum marks for viva-
voce segment may be justified for the
holistic assessment of a candidate, but in
the present case such a requirement was
introduced only after commencement of
the recruitment process and in violation of
the statutory rules. The decision of the
Full Court to depart from the expected
exercise of preparing the merit list as per
the unamended rules is clearly violative
of the substantive legitimate expectation
of the petitioner. It also fails the tests of
fairness, consistency and predictability
and hence is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.‟
9.3. It was ultimately held that once the recruitment
process commences from the issuance of the
advertisement calling for applications, it ends with
filling up of all the vacancies. It was further
observed that the eligibility criteria so notified at the
commencement of the recruitment process cannot be
changed in the midway unless the extant Rules so
permit with further stipulation that even if the extant
Rules permit any change to be brought, such change
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 37 of 67
must withstand the test of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India and shall satisfy the test of
non-arbitrariness. Ultimately, it is held that the
extant Rules having a statutory force are binding on
the Recruiting Body in terms of procedure and
eligibility.
9.4. The law enunciated in the larger Bench decision of
the Apex Court leaves no ambiguity that once the
recruitment process is initiated following the
procedures and the other criteria required in the
statutory Rules in vogue, even if the said Rules is
superseded and/or substituted and/or repealed, it
does not affect the process which has to be
completed following the provisions contained
therein. The expression “extant Rules” as used in
the judgment rendered by the larger Bench is in
relation to Rules, which was prevalent at the time of
initiation of the recruitment process and, therefore,
any change beyond the powers having conferred in
the said extant Rules in the midst of the recruitment
process, is impermissible. It further stands on a
strong logic of fairness and transparency. The
uniformity and/or certainty in the selection process
is the hallmark of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India, and eradicate any vices of arbitrariness,
nepotism and/or favoritism. Even if the extant Rules
permits any change to be brought in the midway,
the exercise of such power must withstand on the
parameters of Article 14 of the Constitution and also
on the test of reasonableness.”
7.4. This Court finds force in the submission of Sri
Biswabihari Mohanty, learned Advocate that a single
post of Placement Officer in the OUAT being created in
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 38 of 67
lieu of abolition of Farm Superintendent in the rank of
the Assistant Professor in pursuance of Agriculture
Department Letter No.14266 — PRE(UAT)-36/10/Ag,
dated 22.06.2010 vide OUAT Letter No.35109— E-II-I-
26/ 2010/UAT, dated 25.06.2010, the same could not
be reserved and the pay scale as attached to the said
post cannot be questioned by the petitioner. Sri
Biswabihari Mohanty, learned Advocate representing the
opposite party No.5, whose appointment is assailed
herein, would draw attention of this Court to
advertisement dated 18.10.2010 to contend that only
post of Placement Officer was sought to be filled up by
way of direct recruitment and the qualification and
eligibility conditions for the said post have been
prescribed by the competent authority.
7.5. After dismissal of writ appeal of the petitioner, being
W.A. No.630 of 2015, by Order dated 18.12.2015
affirming the Order dated 18.10.2010 in W.P.(C)
No.19653 of 2010 the opposite party No.5 got appointed
and joined in the post of Placement Officer having
satisfied the conditions stipulated in the advertisement
dated 18.10.2010. It is contended by the learned
Advocate appearing for the opposite party No.5 that it is
the employer who is competent to fix the eligibility
criteria for a post; nonetheless, the petitioner cannot
compel the authors of the advertisement to change the
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 39 of 67
eligibility criteria and qualification envisaged therein to
suit his own qualification.
7.6. A reference to J and K Service Selection Board and
Another Vrs. Sudesh Kumar and Others, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2681 would suffice to countenance the
submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party
No.5. In said case the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India
after taking note of K. Manjusree (supra) and Tej Prakash
Pathak (supra).observed thus:
“10. It is not in dispute that weightage points allotted to a
B.Sc. Degree in Forestry was 25 points at the stage
when the candidates participated in the selection
process, and this was altered only after interviews
were held, that is, when all the stages of
participation by a candidate in the selection process
were over. In Manjushree (supra), this Court did not
approve of prescribing minimum cut-off marks in the
interview for selection after the interviews were over.
This issue was considered by a Constitution Bench
of this Court in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) and
approved
5. We acknowledge that recruiting bodies
could devise an appropriate procedure for
successfully concluding the recruitment process
provided the procedure adopted has been
transparent, non-discriminatory/non-arbitrary and
has a rational nexus to the object sought be
achieved. Here, we find that the evaluation
procedure was altered after the interviews were
over, candidates had completed their participation in
5
See: Paragraphs 36, 43 and 53 of Tej Prakash Pathak‟s judgment as reported in
(2025) 2 SCC 1.
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 40 of 67
the selection process, and most importantly, it was
altered on representation of candidates. Such
alteration, in our opinion, cannot be termed
transparent and does not have a rational nexus to
the object sought to be achieved in as much as the
academic qualification required for the post was
barely 10+2 with science and stress was more on
physical attributes of a candidate including viva
voce. Therefore, a change in the selection criteria,
after interviews were held, in our view, was rightly
not countenanced by the Division Bench of the High
Court.”
7.7. The learned counsel for the opposite party No.5 has
rightly drew attention of this Court to the prayer of the
petitioner. Careful reading of the prayer made in the
cleverly drafted writ petition reveals that the petitioner
seeks a direction of this Court in exercise of power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India “to accommodate
the petitioner in the post of Placement Officer, now re-
designated as Skill Development Officer retrospectively
with effect from the date the opposite party No.5 was
selected and appointed vide Office Order No.29537, dated
26.12.2015”.
7.8. No iota of evidence could be adduced by the petitioner to
have requisite qualification to claim appointment to the
post of Placement Officer. The Single Bench of this Court
rejected the prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition,
being W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010, vide Order dated
01.09.2015 (appeal against which got dismissed by the
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 41 of 67
Division Bench of this Court and the Special Leave
Petition also suffered same fate before the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court of India) by declining to interfere with
the “essential qualification for the post of Placement
Officer” enshrined in the advertisement dated
18.10.2010 and the petitioner remained unsuccessful in
demonstrating to have possessed “requisite qualification
in terms of the advertisement issued”. The petitioner (a
retired employee having chosen to avail and enjoyed the
benefit of promotional posts of the Senior Assistant and
the Section Officer) at this juncture cannot question the
appointment of the opposite party No.5. Having satisfied
the conditions stipulated in the advertisement dated
18.10.2010, said opposite party No.5 came out in flying
colours and got appointment in the post of Placement
Officer (single post in the OUAT created in lieu of post of
Farm Superintendent). Sri Satya Narayan Mohapatra,
learned Advocate sought to take cue from the Order
dated 20.09.1999
6 to strenuously argue that this Court
directed “for appointment in a suitable post immediately
after a vacancy arises”. On the contrary, in paragraph 5
of the writ petition it is admitted by the petitioner that
“he was adjusted and offered the post of Junior Assistant
as per the Order dated 03.04.2000 passed by the OUAT
6
The petitioner neither furnished full details of the Order dated 20.09.1999 of
this Court passed in O.J.C. No.9987 of 1998 nor has he enclosed copy of such
Order for perusal of this Court. However, the operative part of said Order is
quoted at Paragraph 3 of the writ petition.
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 42 of 67
in the scale of pay of Rs.3,050/- - Rs.4,590/-” ignoring
overage. Without any demur having joined the said post
and having accepted the promotions in the posts of the
Senior Assistant and the Section Officer in the
hierarchy, the petitioner is estopped from claiming for
appointment in the post of Placement Officer, which is
slated to be filled up by direct recruitment. It is
categorical observation of this Court vide Order dated
01.09.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010 that the
petitioner did not possess requisite qualification, which
attained finality and binding inter se parties.
7.9. Sri Soumik Spandan Tripathy, Advocate representing
the OUAT, Sri Debaraj Mohanty, learned Advocate for
the Agriculture and Food Production Department of
Government of Odisha and Sri Biswabihari Mohanty,
learned Advocate for the opposite party No.5 could throw
light in the subject matter of granting promotion after
retirement of an employee. In this respect reliance is
placed on State of West Bengal Vrs. Dr. Amal Satpathi,
2024 INSC 906
7, disposed of vide Judgment dated
27.11.2024, wherein it has been observed that:
“5. Aggrieved by the denial of the benefits flowing from
promotion, respondent No. 1 approached the
Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 555 of 2017. ***
7
Reported at 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512.
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 43 of 67
6. The appellants challenged this order before the High
Court in WPST No. 157 of 2019. The High Court, vide
judgment dated 1
st February, 2023 dismissed the
writ petition, concurring with the Tribunal that
retrospective promotion was impermissible but
noting that notional financial benefits were
justified given that no fault can be attributed
to respondent No. 1. Aggrieved, the State has
preferred this appeal by special leave.
***
8. He further submitted that service jurisprudence does
not recognize retrospective promotion without a
specific enabling provision, therefore, notional
promotion cannot be granted retrospectively unless
there exists a specific rule or exceptional
circumstances. In the present case, Rule 54(1)(a)
of the West Bengal Service Rules, precludes
retrospective promotion.
9. Learned counsel further submitted that the final
approval for the Chief Scientific Officer position was
granted on 4th January, 2017, after the
respondent’s superannuation on 31st
December, 2016, thus, the promotion could not
be effected during his service tenure and
therefore, in the absence of any specific rule
permitting retrospective promotion, the
effective date of promotion should be the date
on which it is granted, not the date of the
vacancy.
***
12. E-converso, learned counsel for respondent
No.1 submitted that respondent No.1 had been
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 44 of 67
serving as Principal Scientific Officer since
24th March, 2008, and could have been
promoted to Chief Scientific Officer as early as
in the year 2013, had the Department
submitted a timely proposal to fill up the
vacancy. It was submitted that the Department
failed to timely provide the confidential reports and
other details of respondent No.1 to the PSC by 13th
April, 2016, as required under the Rules. This
inaction, for reasons best known to the officials
concerned, led to a significant delay in the promotion
process and thus, respondent No.1 was deprived of
this rightful claim to the fruits of promotion from the
date of occurrence of vacancy as per his entitlement.
***
15. The primary question that arises for our
consideration in the present appeal is whether
respondent No.1, who was recommended for the
promotion before his retirement but did not receive
actual promotion to the higher post due to
administrative delays, is entitled to notional
financial benefits of the promotional post after his
retirement?
***
17. The relevant provision i.e., Rule 54(1)(a) of the West
Bengal Service Rules, is extracted hereinbelow for
the sake of ready reference:
“Pay on Officiating Appointment.— 54(1)(a):
Subject to the provisions of Chapter VII, a
Government employee who is appointed to officiate
in a post shall not draw pay higher than* “his
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 45 of 67
substantive pay” in respect of a permanent
post, other than a tenure post, unless the
officiating appointment involves the
assumption of duties and responsibilities of
greater importance than those attaching to the
post, other than a tenure post, on which he
holds a lien, or would hold a lien had it not
been suspended:
Provided that the Governor may specify posts
outside the ordinary line of a service the holders of
which may, notwithstanding the provisions of this
rule and subject to such conditions as the Governor
may prescribe, be given any officiating promotion in
the cadre of the service which the authority
competent to order promotion may decide, and may
thereupon be granted the same pay as they would
have received if still in the ordinary line.” (emphasis
supplied)
18. Upon a bare perusal of Rule 54(1)(a) of the West
Bengal Service Rules, it is clear that promotion
cannot be retrospectively granted after retirement,
as it requires the actual assumption of duties and
responsibilities of the promotional post. In the
present case, since respondent No. 1 superannuated
before the final approval of his promotion, he could
not have formally assume the charge of the
promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer.
Therefore, although respondent No. 1 was
recommended for promotion, Rule 54(1)(a) of the
West Bengal Service Rules precludes him from
getting the financial benefits of the promotional post
without having taken on the responsibilities of the
said post, i.e., Chief Scientific Officer.
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 46 of 67
19. It is a well settled principle that promotion becomes
effective from the date it is granted, rather than from
the date a vacancy arises or the post is created.
While the Courts have recognized the right to be
considered for promotion as not only a statutory
right but also a fundamental right, there is no
fundamental right to the promotion itself. ***
20. In the instant case, it is evident that while
respondent No. 1 was recommended for promotion
before his retirement, he could not assume the
duties of the Chief Scientific Officer. Rule 54(1)(a) of
the West Bengal Service Rules, clearly
stipulates that an employee must assume the
responsibilities of a higher post to draw the
corresponding pay, thus, preventing
posthumous or retrospective promotions in the
absence of an enabling provision.
21. While we recognize respondent No.1‟s right to be
considered for promotion, which is a fundamental
right under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution
of India, he does not hold an absolute right to the
promotion itself. The legal precedents discussed
above establish that promotion only becomes
effective upon the assumption of duties on the
promotional post and not on the date of
occurrence of the vacancy or the date of
recommendation. Considering that respondent
No.1 superannuated before his promotion was
effectuated, he is not entitled to retrospective
financial benefits associated to the promotional post
of Chief Scientific Officer, as he did not serve in that
capacity.”
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 47 of 67
7.10. It is well-nigh settled that the moment the petitioner gets
retired from service, the relationship between the
employer and the employee ceases to exist. The
expression „retire‟ has been defined in Legal Thesaurus
by William C. Burton (Regular Edition Pg 453) in the
context of employment to mean to „conclude a career‟. It
has the following other meanings:
“Abdicate, demit, drop out, give notice, give up office, give
up work, leave, quit, relinquish, resign, stand aside, take
leave, tender one‟s resignation, vacate”.
7.11. The contents of the writ petition along with averments
do not disclose that the petitioner has questioned the
single post. Albeit being conscious of the fact that the
post of Placement Officer, a single post created in the
OUAT in lieu of abolition of Farm Superintendent, has to
be filled up by way of process of undertaking direct
recruitment and that the opposite party No.5 being
selected and appointed against said post of Placement
Officer in 2015 after dismissal of the writ petition of the
petitioner and as on date he has been continuing to
work, it is fallacious to make a prayer in this writ
petition to “accommodate the petitioner in the post of
Placement Officer retrospectively with effect from the date
the opposite party No.5 was selected and appointed vide
Office Order No.29537, dated 26.12.2015” “with all
consequential service and financial benefit by declaring
the appointment and selection of the opposite party No.4
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 48 of 67
(OUAT) to be illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional”.
Doing so, would be to efface the effectiveness of the
Order dated 01.09.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.19653 of
2010, which stands affirmed even after dismissal of
review petition against the order in writ appeal.
8. Valiant attempt is made by Sri Satya Narayan
Mohapatra, learned Advocate to assert that had the
Letter bearing No.10214— PRE-UAT 57/2014, dated
20.06.2014 issued by the Government of Odisha in
Agriculture Department based on the opinion of the Law
Department vide Letter No.32822/UAT, dated
20.06.2011 specifying qualification for the post of
Placement Officer (Class-II) been placed by the OUAT
before this Court while deciding the W.P.(C) No.19653 of
2010 on 01.09.2015, the result would have been
otherwise. Strong opposition is laid by the opposite
parties against such submission of the learned Counsel.
If the Order dated 01.09.2015 rendered by this Court in
W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010 was not palatable, the
petitioner could have taken such plea therein,
nevertheless such stance cannot be taken in the
successive writ petition. This Court finds force in the
submission of Sri Soumik Spandan Tripathy, learned
Advocate for the OUAT that such contention of Sri Satya
Narayan Mohapatra, learned Advocate for the petitioner
could have been raised or agitated by the petitioner in
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 49 of 67
the writ petition, bearing W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010, even
after disposal of said case, if he was so advised. Having
not done so, on flimsy ground the learned counsel for
the petitioner seeks to enforce stale claim.
8.1. What is perceived is that the letter of the Government of
Odisha in Agriculture Department simply stated for
approaching this Court for varying with the terms of
advertisement. This Court in the interim order dated
19.11.2010 in Misc. Case No.18303 of 2010 (arising out
of W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010), directed for continuance of
process of interview in terms of advertisement dated
18.10.2010, but restrained to publish the final decision
for the post of Placement Officer “without leave of the
Court”. Since the said W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010 has
been disposed of on 01.09.2015, there was no occasion
or necessity for the opposite parties to seek modification
of interim order. This Court finds support from the
documents enclosed with the writ petition that the
appointment of the opposite party No.5 was made in a
transparent manner.
8.2. Therefore, there is no scope left for this Court to hold
that the essential qualification specified in the
advertisement dated 18.10.2010 had correctly been
adhered to. For clear understanding with respect to the
prerogative of the appointing authority to prescribe
qualification for a particular post, reference to
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 50 of 67
Banarsidas Vrs. State of U.P., (1956) 1 SCC 572 may be
relevant, wherein it has been observed that:
“4. The petitioners‟ grievance is that they have been
prevented from re-entering the government service
upon the reorganisation of the cadre under the new
name. But it is clear that the Government are within
their rights to lay down certain qualifications for the
new recruits. They are entitled to exclude those
persons who have betrayed a lack of proper sense of
discipline. It cannot therefore be said that the
Government have denied an equal opportunity to
those who are equal in all respects. It appears that
the Government have not permanently filled all the
vacancies in the new cadre. Those of the petitioners
who are prepared to accept the discipline of
government service may approach the proper
authorities through the proper channel and we have
no doubt that their cases will receive sympathetic
consideration at the hands of the Government,
consistently with the demands of the exigencies of
public service.
5. Our attention was particularly invited to the new
scheme of recruitment as laid down in the
Government Orders of the 5th March which
contained the directions that all Patwaris who had
not resigned and who had not reached the age of
superannuation would be absorbed, that the
Patwaris who had resigned but had withdrawn their
resignations by 04.03.1953 would also be absorbed
and that of those who had resigned and whose
resignations had been accepted, only those will be
absorbed who had an excellent record of work and
who had not taken an active part in the agitation.
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 51 of 67
Besides those, fresh recruits also were to be taken
in. With reference to those directions it was
contended that the petitioners who came within the
category excluded from reappointment had really
been denied equal opportunity of appointment as
Lekhpals and that thus Article 16 of the Constitution
was infringed.
6. In our opinion, it is open to the appointing
authority to lay down the requisite
qualifications for recruitment to Government
service and it is open to that authority to lay
down such prerequisite conditions of
appointment as would be conducive to the
maintenance of proper discipline amongst
Government servants. If persons already under
Government employment on part-time basis
had shown themselves not to be amenable to
proper discipline in Government offices, it was
open to Government not to appoint such
persons to the permanent cadre of Lekhpals
because such persons could not be said to be as
efficient as those who had excellent records of
service and had shown greater sense of
responsibility to their employers. Article 16 of
the Constitution is an instance of the application of
the general rule of equality laid down in Article 14,
with special reference to the opportunity for
appointment and employment under the
Government. Like all other employers, Government
are also entitled to pick and choose from amongst a
large number of candidates offering themselves for
employment under the Government.
7. As already indicated, the old Patwaris held part-
time jobs under the Government. The new cadre of
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 52 of 67
Lekhpals is intended to reorganise a similar service
on a more satisfactory basis both from the point of
view of the Government and of the employees
themselves. Under the new scheme, the Lekhpals
are intended to be whole-time servants of the
Government on a considerably higher scale of pay
and with better prospects subject, of course, to the
Government Servants Conduct Rules. If the
Government have decided to exclude all those who
had proved themselves as part-time servants of the
Government to be lacking in a sense of discipline
and of responsibility, it cannot be said that that they
had been denied equal opportunity of appointment
and employment under the Government.
Government have not laid down rules excluding any
particular group of persons from being candidates
for appointment. They had only issued departmental
instructions not to employ those who had not a
satisfactory record of service in the past. Selection
for appointment in Government service has got
to be on a competitive basis and those whose
past service has been free from blemish can
certainly be said to be better qualified for
Government service than those whose record
was not free from any blemish. The matter thus
stands on a basis similar to where the Government
may make it a condition precedent to promotion to a
higher rank in the same cadre of Government service
that only those who had a very satisfactory record
in the past would be considered for promotion. It
must therefore be held that the petitioners have
failed to substantiate their contention that they had
been denied equality of opportunity as contemplated
by Article 16 of the Constitution.”
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 53 of 67
8.3. Reference may also be had to Maharashtra Public Service
Commission Vrs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and Others,
(2019) 7 SCR 94, wherein the following observation is
made:
“10. The essential qualifications for appointment to
a post are for the employer to decide. The
employer may prescribe additional or desirable
qualifications, including any grant of
preference. It is the employer who is best suited
to decide the requirements a candidate must
possess according to the needs of the employer
and the nature of work. The Court cannot lay
down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it
delve into the issue with regard to desirable
qualifications being at par with the essential
eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the
advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also
fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the
language of the advertisement and the rules are
clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the
same. If there is an ambiguity in the
advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or
law the matter has to go back to the
appointing authority after appropriate orders,
to proceed in accordance with law. In no case
can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit
in the chair of the appointing authority to
decide what is best for the employer and
interpret the conditions of the advertisement
contrary to the plain language of the same.
11. The fact that an expert committee may have been
constituted and which examined the documents
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 54 of 67
before calling the candidates for interview cannot
operate as an estoppel against the clear terms of the
advertisement to render an ineligible candidate
eligible for appointment.”
8.4. Meticulous reading of Order dated 01.09.2015 it is
apparent that the learned Single Judge while disposing
of W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010 observed that “subsequent
change of any qualification cannot be taken into
consideration because the selection process has to be
held in terms of the advertisement issued”. Whereas the
advertisement was issued on 18.10.2010 by the OUAT,
appointing authority, specifying the qualification for the
post of Placement Officer, the opinion of the Law
Department was communicated by the Agriculture
Department on 20.06.2014. Though the petitioner in the
written note of submission dated 11.08.2026 (furnished
in course of hearing of the present matter) laid much
emphasis on the interim Order dated 19.11.2010, no
copy of said document was placed on record for perusal
of this Court. Nonetheless, by the date of final order
disposing of the petition, W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010, on
01.09.2015, the process of selection was commenced.
There cannot be any cavil that the process of
recruitment begins with issue of advertisement and
culminates in forwarding of the list of selected candidate
to the appointing authority and in view of Judgment
dated 10.09.2025 of this Court in State of Odisha and
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 55 of 67
Others Vrs. Supriya Kar and Others, W.A. No.138 of 2025
relying on Tej Prakash Pathak and Others Vrs. Rajasthan
High Court and others, (2013) 4 SCC 540 the
understanding of the petitioner that such changed
criteria in terms of the opinion of the Law Department
could have been taken into consideration by the learned
Single Judge overriding the qualification specified in the
advertisement is misconceived. However, the matter in
W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010 attained finality on dismissal
of the writ appeal vide Order dated 18.12.2015 read with
Order dated 19.12.2019 passed in review petition,
RVWPET No.211 of 2016.
8.5. Even otherwise, reference made to S.P. Chengalvaraya
Naidu Vrs. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1 and E.P. Royappa
Vrs. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3 by the learned Counsel
for the petitioner to contend that withholding vital
document would tantamount to fraud on the Court is
misdirected. In Madhuchhanda Sahoo Vrs. Odisha State
Health and Family Welfare Society, 2024 ILR-CUT
ONLINE 218 and Pratap Chandra Mohanty Vrs. Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd., O.J.C. No.14605 of 1997 decided on
29.05.2026 it has been observed by this Court that there
has to be very strong and convincing evidence to
establish the allegations of mala fides specifically alleged
in the petition as the same cannot merely be presumed.
The presumption is in favour of the bona fides of the
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 56 of 67
order unless contradicted by acceptable material. It has
further been observed that in case allegations of mala
fide are made against any person he is to be impleaded
by name, otherwise the allegations cannot be
considered. On such ground also, the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner fails.
8.6. In respect of status of the interim order after final
disposal of main case, it may be highlighted that in
Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority Vrs. Dr. Rajesh
Kumar Pandey, (2022) 3 SCR 190 it has been observed
as follows:
“323.In GTC Industries Ltd. Vrs. Union of India, (1998) 3
SCC 376, it was observed that while vacating stay,
it is the court‟s duty to account for the period of
delay and to settle equities. It is not the gain which
can be conferred. In Jaipur Municipal Corpn. Vrs.
C.L. Mishra, (2005) 8 SCC 423, it has been observed
that interim order merges in the final order,
and it cannot have an independent existence,
cannot survive beyond final decision . In Ram
Krishna Verma Vrs. State of U.P., (1992) 2 SCC 620,
reliance was placed on Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vrs.
CIT, (1980) 2 SCC 191. It was held that no one could
be permitted to suffer from the act of the court and in
case an interim order has been passed and
ultimately petition is found to be without merit and
is dismissed, the interest of justice requires that any
undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party
invoking the jurisdiction of the court must be
neutralised.”
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 57 of 67
8.7. In the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Prem Chopra, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1770, it is held as under:
“18. There is a difference between stay of operation of an
order and quashing of an order which has been
explained by this Court in Shree Chamundi Mopeds
Ltd. Vrs. Church of South India Trust Assn., (1992) 3
SCC 1 as under:
„10. … While considering the effect of an interim
order staying the operation of the order under
challenge, a distinction has to be made
between quashing of an order and stay of
operation of an order. Quashing of an order
results in the restoration of the position as it
stood on the date of the passing of the order
which has been quashed. The stay of operation
of an order does not, however, lead to such a
result. It only means that the order which has
been stayed would not be operative from the
date of the passing of the stay order and it
does not mean that the said order has been
wiped out from existence.
19. Following the said decision, this Court in Kanoria
Chemicals and Industries Ltd. Vrs. U.P. SEB, (1997)
5 SCC 772, has held that an order of stay which is
granted during the pendency of a writ petition/suit
or other proceeding comes to an end with the
dismissal of the substantive proceedings and it is
the duty of the court in such cases to put the parties
in the same position that they would have been in
but for the interim order of the court. In that case,
this Court rejected the contention that when the
operation of the notification itself was stayed, no
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 58 of 67
surcharge could be demanded upon the amount
withheld. It was held thus:
„11. … Holding otherwise would mean that even
though the Electricity Board, who was the
respondent in the writ petitions succeeded
therein, yet deprived of the late payment
surcharge which was due to it under the tariff
rules/regulations. It would be a case where the
Board suffers prejudice on account of the
orders of the court and for no fault of its. It
succeeds in the writ petition and yet loses. The
consumer files the writ petition, obtains stay of
operation of the notification revising the rates
and fails in his attack upon the validity of the
notification and yet he is relieved of the
obligation to pay the late payment surcharge
for the period of stay, which he is liable to pay
according to the statutory terms and conditions
of supply — which terms and conditions
indeed form part of the contract of supply
entered into by him with the Board. We do not
think that any such unfair and inequitable
proposition can be sustained in law. … It is
equally well settled that an order of stay
granted pending disposal of a writ
petition/suit or other proceeding, comes to
an end with the dismissal of the
substantive proceeding and that it is the
duty of the court in such a case to put the
parties in the same position they would
have been but for the interim orders of the
court. Any other view would result in the act
or order of the court prejudicing a party (Board
in this case) for no fault of its and would also
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 59 of 67
mean rewarding a writ petitioner in spite of his
failure. We do not think that any such unjust
consequence can be countenanced by the
courts. As a matter of fact, the contention of the
consumers herein, extended logically should
mean that even the enhanced rates are also
not payable for the period covered by the order
of stay because the operation of the very
notification revising/enhancing the tariff rates
was stayed. Mercifully, no such argument was
urged by the appellants. It is
ununderstandable how the enhanced rates can
be said to be payable but not the late payment
surcharge thereon, when both the
enhancement and the late payment surcharge
are provided by the same notification — the
operation of which was stayed.‟
***
24. From the above discussion, it is clear that imposition
of a stay on the operation of an order means that the
order which has been stayed would not be operative
from the date of passing of the stay order. However,
it does not mean that the stayed order is wiped out
from the existence, unless it is quashed. Once the
proceedings, wherein a stay was granted, are
dismissed, any interim order granted earlier
merges with the final order. In other words, the
interim order comes to an end with the
dismissal of the proceedings. In such a situation,
it is the duty of the court to put the parties in the
same position they would have been but for the
interim order of the court, unless the order granting
interim stay or final order dismissing the
proceedings specifies otherwise. On the dismissal of
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 60 of 67
the proceedings or vacation of the interim order, the
beneficiary of the interim order shall have to pay
interest on the amount withheld or not paid by virtue
of the interim order.”
8.8. This point as agitated by the learned counsel for the
petitioner can be analysed on different angle. The
petitioner at paragraph 14 of the writ petition enclosed
the Letter dated 20.06.2014 of the Agriculture
Department which spelt out about his posting as
Placement Officer by indicating qualification as per the
opinion of the Law Department. The Law Department is
not the appointing authority. However, in the written
note of submission a stand is taken that the opposite
parties have concealed such fact from presenting the
same before this Court in the earlier round of litigation.
Minute scrutiny of pleadings in the writ petition does not
emerge the fact of source of such letter being available to
the petitioner. Be that be, had the letter been within his
knowledge, there is no explanation as to why the same
was not adduced before the Court in earlier round of
litigation. There is nothing on record to suggest that
such letter could come to be noticed by the petitioner
after disposal of special leave petition or review petition.
Even such fact is placed, the result would not have
changed as it is the author (appointing authority) who is
competent to prescribe requisite qualification for the
post of Placement Officer and once advertisement has
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 61 of 67
been issued with requisite qualification the same could
not be changed.
8.9. A reference to Makardhwaj Ram Vrs. Jagdish Rai (Dead)
Th. Lrs. & Anr., (2026) 7 SCR 240 may be relevant in this
regard, wherein it has been observed that:
“8. From a considered perusal of the above judgments,
the following aspect of constructive res judicata can
be highlighted:
8.1 Constructive res judicata mandates that all grounds
that might and ought to have been employed in the
proceedings, should be employed to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings.
8.2 It is a deeming fiction of law, but its application is
not uniform and instead is dependent on the facts
and circumstances of a particular case with „due
regard to ambit of the earlier proceedings‟ and „the
nexus which the matter bears to the nature of the
controversy‟.
8.3 This principle is founded on public policy. It is a
generally acceptable rule that one person should not
be “vexed twice over” for the same kind of litigation.
As such, it also applies to the proceedings under
Article 226/32 of the Constitution of India.
8.4 In respect of „ought‟ referred above, the said word
implies the threshold to be above mere possibility.
8.5 The parties while conducting litigation are expected
to apply „reasonable diligence‟, „legitimate purview‟.
It is from this lens that it shall be adjudicated
whether all issues that were properly arising to the
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 62 of 67
litigation; which ought to have been raised; were
raised or not?
8.6 The principle applies with equal force in cases where
the ground that might and ought to have been raised
was not done, on account of negligence,
inadvertence or accident. In other words, might and
ought to apply cumulatively with full force, without
exception. The party therefore commits these errors
at their own peril.”
8.10. With the above legal perspective, the opposite party No.5
being appointed in the post of Placement Officer after
dismissal of writ appeal in the year 2015 cannot be said
to be malicious or whimsical. Under the aforementioned
circumstances, this Court finds no suppression of
material fact and violation of interim order.
9. Last ditch attempt has been made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner to salvage the plea of the
petitioner. It is submitted by Sri Satya Narayan
Mohapatra, learned Advocate that the rejection of the
representation to give effect to/implement Order dated
19.12.2019 passed in petition being RVWPET No.211 of
2016 of this Court vide Order dated 15.12.2020 passed
by the Vice-Chancellor, OUAT is incorrect approach and
outcome of misreading of the case of the petitioner.
Indubitably the record suggests that the advertisement
dated 18.10.2010 specified qualification to be satisfied
for making application for the post of Placement Officer,
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 63 of 67
which is a single post to be filled up by way of direct
recruitment process and it is not a promotional post.
Counsel representing respective opposite parties
unequivocally submitted that once eligibility criteria is
reflected in the advertisement till the recruitment
process is completed, change of such condition is
impermissible in law.
9.1. It is settled that any recruitment process is to be
followed and concluded in the light of the Recruitment
Rules. In Ramkhiladi Sharma Vrs. National Health
Mission, 2020 SCC OnLine MP 2975 it has been observed
thus:
“9. In case of Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal
Office, Kochi Vrs. Aarya K. Babu (2019) 8 SCC 587,
the Apex Court has held as under:
“12. Though we have taken note of the said
contention we are unable to accept the same.
We are of such opinion in view of the well-
established position that it is not for the Court
to read into or assume and thereby include
certain qualifications which have not been
included in the Notification by the employer.
Further the rules as referred to by the learned
counsel for the respondents is pointed out to be
a rule for promotion of officers. That apart,
even if the qualification prescribed in the
advertisement was contrary to the qualification
provided under the recruitment rules, it would
have been open for the candidate concerned to
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 64 of 67
challenge the Notification alleging denial of
opportunity. On the other hand, having taken
note of the specific qualification prescribed in
the notification it would not be open for a
candidate to assume that the qualification
possessed by such candidate is equivalent and
thereby seek consideration for appointment nor
will it even be open for the employer to change
the requirements midstream during the ongoing
selection process or accept any qualification
other than the one notified since it would
amount to denial of opportunity to those who
possess the qualification but had not applied
as it was not notified.‟
10. In view of above, the subsequent relaxation in the
essential qualification/disqualification notified by
advertisement Annexure P-1 cannot be made
applicable to the on-going recruitment in question
and thus petitioners cannot reap advantage of the
same.”
9.2. It is submitted by the opposite parties that even if
qualification suggested by the Law Department in its
opinion is taken, since the petitioner has no requisite
qualification as specified in the advertisement dated
18.10.2010, this Court did rightly not interfere with the
criteria specified in the advertisement in the earlier
round of writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010,
disposed of by Order dated 01.09.2015.
9.3. It is evident from the documents forming part of record
that even though in consideration of review petition,
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 65 of 67
being RVWPET No.211 of 2016, filed at the behest of the
petitioner after disposal of Special Leave Petition by the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India, this Court deleted
paragraph 2 of Order dated 18.12.2015 passed in W.A.
No.630 of 2015, the consequent effect would indicate
that the writ appeal challenging Order dated 01.09.2015
passed in W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010 got dismissed in
view of paragraph 3 of said order in writ appeal.
Therefore, essentially the Order of learned Single Judge
dated 01.09.2015 attained finality. It is the observation
of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, being
W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010, vide Order dated 01.09.2015
stands undisturbed till date. The learned Single Judge
observed that since the petitioner lacked the requisite
qualifications stipulated in the advertisement, any
subsequent change in qualification cannot be taken into
consideration. This observation flies in the face of the
petitioner‟s current contentions. Hence, the
representation of the petitioner before the authorities
cannot resurrect stale claim.
9.4. It would be submitted by the opposite parties that even
when an order has been passed on the basis of a
representation preferred by an employee, the same
would not give life to a stale claim for consideration of
qualification set forth in the advertisement dated
18.10.2010 and consequent upon disposal of writ
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 66 of 67
petition, writ appeal, special leave petition and review
petition, successive writ petition in the garb of re-
examining the issue of specifying criteria for
appointment to the post of Placement Officer in the
advertisement dated 18.10.2010 cannot be
maintainable. [Refer, State of Tripura Vrs. Arabinda
Chakraborty, (2014) 6 SCC 460, Naresh Kumar Vrs.
Government (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 9 SCC 416, Union of
India Vrs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59 and State of
Uttar Pradesh Vrs. Rajmati Singh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC
1785].
9.5. This Court neither in Order dated 01.09.2015 passed in
W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2010 nor in Order 18.12.2015
passed in W.A. No.630 of 2015 read with Order dated
19.12.2019 passed in RVWPET No.211 of 2016 granted
any leave to the petitioner to file representation.
However, such representation being rejected by the Vice-
Chancellor by Order dated 15.12.2020 (Annexure-16) no
fault could be demonstrated by the petitioner.
Conclusion:
10. The above discussions on factual matrix as also the
conspectus of legal position as set forth by the Courts do
not leave option to take any contrary view than to say
that the writ petition is devoid of merit and hence, no
relief, as claimed by the petitioner, can be granted.
WP(C) No.18436 of 2021 Page 67 of 67
11. For the reasons ascribed to in the foregoing paragraphs,
this Court declines to show indulgence in the Office
Order dated 26.12.2015 passed by the Vice-Chancellor
of the Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology,
Bhubaneswar appointing the opposite party No.5
(Ashirbad Satapathy) as Placement Officer (Annexure-14)
and the Order vide Letter No.17431— E-I-II-
18/2009/UAT, dated 15.12.2020 of Vice-Chancellor,
OUAT (Annexure-16) rejecting the representations of the
petitioner requesting therein to appoint him in the post
of Placement Officer.
12. In the result, the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.18436 of
2021, challenging Order dated 15.12.2020 of the Vice-
Chancellor of the OUAT (Annexure-16) and Office Order
dated 26.12.2015 of the Vice-Chancellor of the OUAT
(Annexure-14) stands dismissed, but in the
circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 27
th August, 2026/Aswini/Bichi/Laxmikant
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....